4 ms·
>It differs from other non-profit membership media organizations such as the Associated Press, in that it was established by an act of Congress.[4] Although NPR
by Dalewyn 4y ago
>It differs from other non-profit membership media organizations such as the Associated Press, in that it was established by an act of Congress.[4] Although NPR receives only 1% of its direct funding from the federal government,[5] member stations (which pay dues amounting to approximately one third of NPR's revenue), tend to receive far larger portions of their budgets from the federal (through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) and state governments.[6][7][8][9][10][11] NPR states it is not state-run media, and further states it operates independently of the U.S. government;[5] nonetheless, NPR indicates that federal funding is essential to NPR and that the loss of federal funding would weaken the network.[6] The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which created NPR in 1970, and still funds NPR, operates through 47 U.S.C. 396.[12][13]
From Wiki's article on NPR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
If that isn't state-affiliated, I don't know what is.
- KerrAvon 4y agoThe intent of this label was to highlight government propaganda outlets and distinguish them from news organizations. NPR is editorially independent and should not have this label.
- dcow 4y agoHonestly at this point in my life I don’t believe anybody can be editorially independent of their funding source no matter how hard they try. A label indicating accounts who receive government money despite what they claim about editorial independence seems like the move. Otherwise all the “propaganda outlets” will just claim independence. If the BBC is heavily subsidized then label it.
- dekhn 4y agoSure, you can't be truly editorially independent, but I'd say any fair evaluation of NPR's coverage would show that it is not a state mouthpiece, like Voice of America. It's an establishment mouthpiece (the state and the establishment aren't completely overlapping). This is America: you can bite the hand that feeds you and still be fed.
- xienze 4y ago> The intent of this label was to highlight government propaganda outlets and distinguish them from news organizations. Then Twitter should have, from the beginning, attached a big “propaganda warning” label on such sources instead of trying to make passive insinuations to the same effect using a label that has broad meaning. Looks like that backfired.
- justapassenger 4y agoState affiliated media means state has editorial control over it. Not that they get some money from government.
- taeric 4y agoState-affiliated does seem to imply far more state involvement than this, though? And... just checking, but I don't see this same thing on BBC accounts. Such that I'm now curious how you would distinguish those? Even more amusing "NPR Health News" doesn't have this. So, am I just to believe that Twitter is incompetent?
- ncr100 4y agoIt's a biased labeling. Terminology is being abused here. Read the specific Twitter policy not Wikipedia. Twitter is applying a label they themselves are defining. Twitter is selectively labeling because while also not knowing the finances of every entity in existence. Also the actual Twitter policy, the way they've defined it, says that beyond taking funding, and an entity also must toe the line of the state. Which NPR does not. So, it's inaccurate and therefore misinformation. Worse it's biased so it could be disinformation.
- Tagbert 4y agoEven those affiliate stations only receive a minority of their funding from federal, state, and local governments. Most of their money comes from corporate sponsorships and listener contributions.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- fknorangesite 4y ago> If that isn't state-affiliated, I don't know what is. Indeed - apparently you don't.